Onward Homes Limited (202201976)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201976

Onward Homes Limited

15 March 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in the property;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos;
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a managed move;
4. How the landlord dealt with outstanding work to box in pipes;
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and moved into his current property on 10 December 2018.
The resident has ongoing medical and mental health issues of which the landlord is aware.

Policies & Procedures

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping internal walls, floors, ceilings, doors, and skirting boards in good repair, but not internal painting or decoration. The tenant is responsible for keeping the inside of their home in a clean, tidy and hygienic condition and for decorating all internal parts of their home.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within four hours (two hours for supported properties) and will respond to urgent repairs within five working days. The timescale for responding to routine repairs is 20 working days.
The landlord has a compensation policy, where it will award a payment of £50 for poor customer service if a complaint is upheld. Examples given for poor customer service include delays in raising repair jobs, failure to respond to communications within a reasonable time, staff conduct, and delays in responding to complaints.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process, which advises that it will respond to both stage one and stage two complaints within 10 working days.
The landlord’s Lettings and Allocations Policy states that it is able to arrange emergency moves for existing tenants by way of a management move. It specifies that emergency transfers will only be considered in exceptional circumstances, where it is no longer safe for a tenant to continue living in their home.
The landlord has an Asbestos Safety Policy, which it states complies with the Home Standard under the regulatory framework for social housing in England 2015. This requires all housing providers to ‘meet all applicable statutory requirements that provide for the health and safety of the occupants in their homes’. The policy states that it is not a requirement for the landlord to remove all asbestos when identified. However, by the use of risk management, it will manage asbestos containing materials via reasonably practicable means to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres to comply with the regulations.

Summary of events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 April 2021 to report that he had mould on the window frame in his bathroom and sent photographic evidence. The resident asked for the window to be replaced. The landlord responded the following day and advised the resident to clean the area with a black mould spray. It added that, if the mould was growing, it would show on the walls but that, from the pictures, this did not appear to be the case. The landlord stated it would not replace a window due to staining.
The resident wrote back to the landlord on 14 April 2021 to say that he had used UPVC restorer but, because someone had painted over the mould, he could not remove it and it was growing underneath. There is no evidence the landlord replied to the resident at that time.
The landlord fitted a new radiator in the resident’s bathroom on 22 June 2021 and booked for the radiator pipes to be boxed in on 6 July 2021. The resident advised the landlord that the operative who attended told him a new bathroom window was required. The landlord confirmed that the operative had not reported this back but said in his report that the radiator should resolve the black mould around the window and that no new window was needed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 and 16 July 2021 about recurrent mould around his bathroom window and told it he was about to start immunosuppressant therapy and was concerned the mould would put his health at risk. On 16 July 2021, the landlord booked for the mould to be cleaned.
The resident called the landlord on 21 July 2021 to complain that he had been waiting for two months for the exposed radiator pipes to be boxed in and that the job that had been booked for that morning had been missed.
On 22 July 2021, the landlord responded again to the resident about the mould and told him that, having looked at the pictures he had sent, it looked like the paint on the wood around the window frame was peeling away and just needed repainting. It said that, as this would be classed as cosmetic work, it did not fall under the landlord’s responsibility.
It is not clear on what date the landlord made its decision with regard to a management move but the resident spoke to it on 26 July 2021 and told it that he was not happy about its decision. He stated that he was expecting a call from a manager to explain why the medical information he supplied had not been taken into account. It is not clear how the landlord had responded at the time. The resident also brought up the issue about the mould on his window and the landlord explained that this had already been looked into by the Repairs team. It stated that, as the marks around the window were cosmetic, it was the resident’s responsibility to remove them.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord completed work to box the exposed radiator pipes near the walls but was unable to cover the pipes on the floor. The landlord confirmed there was a PVC sheet covering the exposed pipes and that a work order would need to be raised as soon as possible to screed the area.
On 28 July 2021, the resident sent a stage one complaint, stating the following:
1. He wanted to make a complaint regarding the landlord’s failings over the last seven years;
2. He listed repair issues he had experienced in his previous property, which led to his landlord moving him into his current home;
3. He stated that this has had a dramatic impact on his physical and mental health;
4. He mentioned the mould on his bathroom window and said the landlord was refusing to deal with this, and this was putting his life at risk;
5. The resident felt the landlord had failed in its duty of care and had offered no support for his declining physical and mental health;
6. He was still waiting for answers as to why he did not meet the criteria for a management move following the medical information he had supplied;
7. He requested access to all his information that was held by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 2 August 2021, and the resident’s member of parliament (MP) contacted the landlord on 10 August 2021 regarding his request for a management move. The MP attached a copy of the resident’s GP letter, asked it to update him on the case and to provide information on the options available for a move.
On 5 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns that the operative who carried out the work to box in the radiator pipes had informed him there may be asbestos in the property. He asked the landlord what action it should take if this were the case.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response, which stated the following:
1. The landlord had recently assessed the bathroom window and stated that mould on windows is the responsibility of the tenant;
2. It stated that the mould was not present during the void works and had not been picked up as part of the resident’s recent disrepair case;
3. It believed the mould was caused by excessive condensation in the bathroom and, as a goodwill gesture, it had tried to clean the window. It is not clear when the landlord had done this; however, it said it could not remove all the mould because someone had painted over it at some point;
4. It advised the resident to remove the paint and to ventilate the bathroom;
5. It said it understood the resident’s desire to move and that it had included information on the options available to him in its response to his MP. (It is noted that the landlord did not supply the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter it had sent to the MP.)
6. It explained that the resident could either bid for alternative properties on the local authority’s choice based letting scheme or register for a mutual exchange;
7. It advised the resident that it had been unable to find any failure in its service and that it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2021 to request an inspection. He stated that there were pipes protruding on the hallway, from where pipes were boxed in and that the floor had not been properly screeded.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 19 August 2021 and reported that the bathroom window was fit for purpose and that there was no asbestos in the property. Following this, the resident asked for a copy of the asbestos report.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord responded to an email from the resident dated 15 August 2021. It stated the following:
1. That the repairs manager had virtually assessed the resident’s window and did not feel there was a serious mould problem;
2. The inspection of 19 August found that the window was fit for purpose.
3. It reiterated that it would not be replacing the window and advised the resident to keep his bathroom ventilated;
4. It explained that the resident’s housing situation had been assessed in July 2021 as part of an MP enquiry and, based on this, it did not believe he was suitable for a management move.
5. It reiterated that the resident was able to apply for a property himself through the options mentioned in the stage one response but, if his situation changed or he had further evidence, to provide this and it would be forwarded to the appropriate person;
6. Further to its telephone conversation with the resident on 23 August 2021, where he raised concerns the property had asbestos, the landlord had investigated further and confirmed the inspection of 19 August had found no asbestos.
On 20 August 2021, following a tenancy support referral, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s general practitioner (GP) had referred him for mental health support and that the resident had agreed to the referral.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 August 2021 and requested that his complaint was escalated. In his email, he stated the following:
1. The resident asked why the mould on his window was not deemed serious when a professional cleaning team could not remove it;
2. He said that he was about to start a course of treatment that would affect his immune system and that the mould posed a serious risk to his health;
3. That he had sent the landlord five medical letters with regard to his housing situation and that, in order that he could relax and recover from his treatment, he required a property that was not situated below another one;
4. He believed the landlord’s investigation into possible asbestos was insufficient and that it should have looked at the most recent asbestos survey that stated there was asbestos;
5. He said that, from 1 September 2021, he would have no contact with the landlord unless it was through legal channels.
The landlord called the resident on 1 September 2021 and explained again that he did not meet the criteria for a management move and that he should register with his local authority’s choice based lettings scheme if he felt he could no longer live in his current property
On 22 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint and, on 7 October 2021 it sent him a response, which stated the following:
1. The resident’s bathroom area had been inspected and the outcome was that the double glazed window was not defective;
2. The mould was identified as minor and the extractor fan, together with maintaining comfortable heating levels and regular cleaning of the window, should control the condensation that was causing the mould;
3. In order to resolve the matter, the landlord had tried to clean the mould stains away but, because they had been painted over, they were difficult to completely remove;
4. It suggested carrying out a further inspection so it could provide more advice on how to minimise moisture levels;
5. It said it appreciated the challenges the resident faced in his current property but reiterated that his request for a management move did not meet the criteria for an emergency transfer. In addition, it listed the criteria as per its Homes Lettings and Allocations Policy;
6. It repeated its advice with regard to the resident registering with the Choice Based Lettings Scheme and exploring a mutual exchange.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 11 November 2021 but the outcome of this is not clear from the evidence provided.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord carried out a further inspection and concluded that, “given the environmental factors at the time, which included a difference of condensation and mould growth in the bathroom around the window frame, and which differed from the previous inspection at the time of the complaint, the repairs specialist agreed to replace the bathroom window”.
On 2 May 2022, the resident approached this Service and said he wanted someone to be held accountable for the breach in asbestos regulations. He stated that he either wanted the asbestos removed or to be moved to a property that did not pose the same risk.
The resident raised a further stage one complaint with the landlord on 10 May 2022, in which he stated that the landlord had broken asbestos regulations and that he had been wrongly told there was no asbestos. He said that the failure of the landlord to remove the asbestos was putting his family and visitors at risk. He also wanted the complaint to include the failure of the landlord’s contractors to properly box in the radiator pipes, which had left the property with a trip hazard.
The resident wrote a further email to the landlord on 19 May 2022, saying he also wanted to complain that it had rejected his request for a management move, even after his doctor and the hospital had said he should be moved to a different property.
On 22 May 2022, the landlord sent the resident a stage one response which stated the following.
1. The landlord said that, following an inspection on 19 August 2021, the inspector advised he could not find asbestos in the property;
2. After the resident referred to a survey that confirmed there was asbestos, the matter was passed onto the landlord’s Compliance and Repairs teams. It confirmed there were no concerns with asbestos in the property that would affect any work to the floors;
3. Following a further inspection in November 2021, the landlord confirmed there was asbestos in the floor tiles and that it would only be an issue if the tiles were disturbed;
4. A further inspection was undertaken in January 2022;
5. With regard to boxing in the pipes, the resident had requested a different contractor to rectify the issue and the landlord explained this was not something it could arrange. It said that it would be in touch with the resident about this;
6. The landlord apologised that the resident was given incorrect information regarding asbestos in his property, upheld his complaint and offered him £50 compensation.
The resident responded on 26 May 2022 stating that he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage two and that he expected a response by 13 June 2022. The landlord wrote back on 13 June 2022, stating that the resident would receive an acknowledgement early the following week to confirm his complaint had been escalated.
On 6 July 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage two response letter, which stated the following:
1. The landlord carried out a review on 19 August 2021, following the resident’s report about asbestos in the property. It concluded there was chrysotile asbestos in the floor tiles in the hallway and lounge, they were in good condition and the level of asbestos exposure was very low;
2. The landlord recommended that the asbestos was managed in line with current health and safety guidance;
3. The resident’s concerns were escalated to the landlord’s Compliance Asbestos Management team, who considered the asbestos safe in its current location and sent the outcome of their review on 23 August 2021;
4. Following further inspections in November 2021 and January 2022, the landlord advised again that the asbestos was safe in its current location;
5. The landlord had looked at its asbestos policy and current legal requirements and concluded it had acted appropriately;
6. The landlord reiterated its offer of £50 in recognition of the failings it had identified in its stage one response.
The resident wrote to this Service on 9 August 2022, informing it that the landlord has raised a job to scrape up the asbestos tiles in the hallway. He said that the landlord had advised there were no risks if the tiles were not disturbed but that they would be if the work went ahead.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of mould in the property

When the resident first reported mould on the window frame in his bathroom, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide appropriate advice after assessing the photos the resident had sent. This virtual inspection found that the mould was minor and limited to the window frame. The landlord could not see any mould on the walls and considered the marks on the window frame to be cosmetic work. It concluded that the damp in the bathroom was caused by condensation and duly advised the resident to use a black mould spray and keep the room adequately ventilated. There is also evidence the bathroom hadan extractor fan that the landlord confirmed metcurrent building regulations. In addition, when the landlord physically inspected the property on 19 August 2021, it found that the bathroom window was fit for purpose and did not need to be replaced. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its expert in coming to the conclusion that the window did not need to be replaced at that time.
The landlord had offered to clean the mould from the window frame but found that some mould had previously been painted over and it was not able to completely remove the marks. The landlord was not at fault for reminding the resident that the tenancy agreement did not require it to carry out cosmetic work to the inside of the property. It correctly advised the resident that he should remove the paint from the window frame so the marks can then be cleaned off.
Following further contacts from the resident, who continued to raise concerns about mould on the bathroom window, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out a further inspection on 5 January 2022. Following the outcome of the inspection, the landlord felt it was appropriate at that time to replace the bathroom window. From the evidence available, it is not clear when the window was replace but, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the outcome of its most recent inspection, which found new evidence to inform it that the window should be replaced.

The resident’s concerns about asbestos

Under regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, landlords have a legal duty to manage asbestos in the common areas of their residential properties. This requires landlords to identify any asbestos containing materials, to assess the risk, and to make a plan to manage that risk. There is, however, no ‘duty to manage’ or to maintain an asbestos register for domestic properties, and no legal obligation to inform residents of where the asbestos is in their homes. A landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos from a domestic property if it is in a sound condition and can be left undisturbed. However, if it is damaged or deteriorates and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord is under a duty to repair or, if necessary, remove the damaged asbestos.
The landlord was correct in carrying out an inspection on 19 August 2021 when the resident raised concerns there was asbestos in the property. However, the inspector wrongly advised there was no asbestos. It was only after the resident had made further enquiries that the landlord acknowledged there was chrysotile asbestos present in the resident’s hallway and living room floor tiles. The risk was assessed as low and it was recommended that the condition of the floor tiles be managed and monitored. Further inspection surveys carried out in November 2021 and January 2022 confirmed that the floor tiles were assessed as very low risk if left undisturbed and should be managed and monitored.
The landlord’s decision not to remove the asbestos was in line with the findings of the asbestos surveys and the landlord was correct to rely on the outcome of the inspections. This decision was also in line with guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive and the approach outlined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System; all of which confirm that asbestos, which is in a good condition, can be left in situ. The landlord had taken steps to monitor the condition of the asbestos by carrying out reinspection surveys.
It was correct for the landlord to acknowledge that it had given the resident inaccurate information following the initial inspection in 19 August 2021 and it is understandable that this would have caused concern and uncertainty to the resident. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer £50 in recognition of the poor customer service, which is in line with its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman understands the landlord has since removed the floor tiles but is yet to install alternative flooring. We have not commented on the removal of the tiles and whether proper procedure was followed as this occurred after the landlord issued its final response and is not within the scope of this investigation. However, we have made a recommendation to the landlord about this at the end of this report.

The resident’s request for a management move

In assessing the resident’s request for a management move, the landlord was correct to refer to its Homes Lettings and Allocations Policy, which lists the criteria under which residents can be considered for emergency moves. The landlord was also correct to base its decision on this criteria and to provide transparency by listing the criteria in its stage two response letter. It was appropriate for the landlord to give the resident details on other ways he could apply for alternative housing. It is commendable that, when the resident mentioned the impact his property was having on his mental health, the landlord demonstrated its duty of care towards the resident in making a tenancy support referral, which resulted in a GP referral for mental health support.
However, there is no evidence that, following the resident’s request for a management move, a decision letter was sent that properly and adequately explained why its policy criteria had not been met. The resident was not given a clear indication as to why his application was refused, despite the medical evidence he had provided. Although the Ombudsman cannot criticise the landlord for its decision, we understand the frustration and uncertainty the resident would have felt at not being given a full and clear explanation of why his medical evidence had not been not considered as part of the assessment. In this regard, the communication was poor and would have, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, contributed to the resident’s anxiety and distress regarding his current situation.

The outstanding repair

It was appropriate that the landlord acted quickly to book work to box in radiator pipes in the resident’s hallway, after the new radiator had been fitted. It is also commendable that the landlord ensured the work could be done as soon as possible by re-scheduling the booking from 21 July to 6 July 2021. Despite the fact the work was delayed, the operatives attended on 26 July 2021, which was within the 20 working day timescale for routine repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy.
Although operatives attended to box in the radiator pipes on 26 July 2021, they did not complete the work and were able to only box in the radiator pipes near the walls. It is unclear why the landlord had not been able to screed the hallway floor on the same day or why it did not make sufficient provision in order to complete the work that was required. This meant the resident was left with exposed radiator pipes on his hallway floor which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, may have posed a potential safety hazard.
It was correct that the landlord recognised the remaining work needed to be completed as soon as possible but it is unclear when this job was booked. There is evidence the floor had been screeded some time before 16 August 2021; however, when the resident raised concerns that the pipes had not been properly covered, and as a result he had been left with a trip hazard, there is no evidence the landlord had arranged an inspection or asked the resident to send a photo so it could assess this. In addition, there is no indication the landlord had taken further action to address whether the work had been properly completed or that it had taken any corrective action.

The complaint handling

Although the landlord responded to both of the resident’s stage one complaints within its 10 working day timescale, there were delays in responding to both stage two complaints. The initial stage two complaint about mould and the management move request was sent nearly 20 working days outside the landlord’s 10 working day timescale. Meanwhile, the stage two response regarding the asbestos was sent around 40 working days after the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated.
It is not clear why the responses were delayed. The Ombudsman considers that this will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident, in addition to the resident feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously. In addition, the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage. The landlord did not write to the resident to advise him that it was not able to respond within its 10 working day timescale or provide an apology for the delay in either of its stage two response letters. Furthermore, the landlord did not comply with its compensation policy and offer compensation for the delayed complaint responses. The landlord’s failure to follow both its complaint and compensation policies amounts to a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about asbestos
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a managed move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord dealt with outstanding work to box in pipes;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord correctly relied on the outcome of its inspections when making its initial decision not to replace the bathroom window and then, later, to agree to a replacement.
The landlord correctly followed its own asbestos policy and the current asbestos guidance, along with the outcome of its inspections to conclude that the asbestos tiles posed a low risk and did not need to be removed. However, it did initially give the resident incorrect advice by telling him there was no asbestos in the property, but adequately addressed this by offering compensation for its poor customer service.
The landlord’s poor communication when informing the resident that he did not meet the criteria for a management move meant it failed to properly explain why it had not taken his medical information into account.
The landlord failed to complete work to cover exposed pipes, leaving him to live with a potential safety hazard. It then failed to inspect the work when the resident raised concerns that he had been left with a possible trip hazard.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints process when responding to the resident’s stage two complaints and also failed to offer an apology or compensation in line with its compensation policy.

Orders

In addition to the £50 offered for poor customer service, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £50 in recognition of the two delayed complaint responses, £100 for its failure to issue a decision letter following the resident’s management move request and £100 for its failure to complete an outstanding repair and leaving the resident with a potential safety risk.
The total amount of £300 to be paid to the resident four weeks following receipt of this report.
The landlord to apologise to the resident, in line with this Service’s guidance that:
1. an apology should be made by the landlord as a body, rather than an identified member of staff.
2. an apology should acknowledge the maladministration or service failure; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret.
3. where appropriate, an apology should include assurances that the same maladministration or service failure should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to try to ensure this.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident with a decision letter clearly setting out why he does not meet the criteria for a management move and to explain whether or not his medical information had been taken into account and, if not, why not.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its complaints process against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in light of the failings identified.
As the resident has recently reported to the Ombudsman that he now has mould in other parts of his bathroom, it should carry out an inspection so it can identify if there is anything further it can do to address this, or provide the resident with further advice on how to manage the issue.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss how it plans to replace the floor tiles it has removed from the hallway and living room area.